Apocalypto, Revolver

Apocalypto (2006)

I was pleasantly surprised with the movie.  I guess I was expecting a ’serious’ movie along the line of ‘The Passion of the Christ’.  While the movie is a drama, it is not nearly as heavy.  The main positive of the movie is that it started with a good story.  It is a story that could be played in any time period, but setting it in period that Mel Gibson did, gave it an other world feel.  It felt more real than almost all period pieces.  I felt like I may have actually been transported back to that time.

There are moments that feel contemporary, yet are organic.  I think it was a smart move to use relatively unknown actors for the roles.  Russell Crowe of Brad Pitt would not have been right.  Even the level of detail for the extras is appreciated.  Gibson has a style that includes lot of close-ups on extras and it lends more realism to the setting.  This film is much more accessible than I was anticipating. 

Revolver (2005)

I’ll start off by saying that I enjoyed the movie.  The casting was well done (who knew Andre 3000 was a decent actor).  The pacing is such that it pulls you right into the action.  The editing style was starting to get old in ‘Snatch’.  By now, it is almost cliche’.

My problem with the film is that it tries too hard to be clever.  Setting the story against a backdrop of a chess game is just so overused.  While I appreciate the mental aspect of the game, there are no real changes in the game.  After 5 moves, you can identify who’s gambit a player is using.  It’s the same thing with movies that involve chess.

If it is all building up to a big reveal, the twist should be smart.  The twist in ‘Revolver‘ fell well short of its aim.  It was telegraphed so plainly that I wonder if Guy Ritchie intended this.  I really hope not.  The first 80 or so minutes were enjoyable.  The last 20 just unravelled into self indulgence.  At least we weren’t subjected to Madonna making an appearance.  That’s my criteria for viewing Ritchie films.